Early tenancy release

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Early tenancy release

    Hi,

    Me and my partner just bought a house and we wanted to do an early release of the property we are in. The Landlord (agency) agreed for us to leave if we pay £540 for them to put the property back on the market and be liable to pay rent until somebody rents the place. We agreed with this because it seemed like a good idea at the time but now I'm not so sure. The property came back on the market at £725 and they also require a £2000 deposit for it at this point. I know the prices went up since we rented the place in 2009 as they put our rent up every year. In August we renewed our contract at £600 and our deposit is just £600. Does anybody has the impression from the story above that the L is taking advantage of our situation by putting the property on the market at such a high price? Properties bigger then the one we are in, in the same building were rented at £650 in August. Any suggestions on what should we do if nobody wants to rent the place at that price?

    #2
    LL is under no obligation to accept your early release - you signed a binding contract and are therefore liable to pay rent until its end. The LL may be chancing their arm to gain the rent and deposit specified, but there is little you can do about it. Why did you renew in August when you were looking for a property to buy? You could have allowed tenancy to run to a periodic tenancy, allowing a month's notice from you to end it.

    There is little you can do, you signed the agreement, you agreed to pay for the fixed term!

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by LesleyAnne View Post
      LL is under no obligation to accept your early release - you signed a binding contract and are therefore liable to pay rent until its end. The LL may be chancing their arm to gain the rent and deposit specified, but there is little you can do about it. Why did you renew in August when you were looking for a property to buy? You could have allowed tenancy to run to a periodic tenancy, allowing a month's notice from you to end it.

      There is little you can do, you signed the agreement, you agreed to pay for the fixed term!
      Thank you for your response. I was not given the option and did not know that I would be able to rent on a monthly basis. The property we bought came back on the market unexpectedly. The one we wanted to buy when we renewed our contract was suppose to come on the market next year in July. We wanted to save the rent increase and went for a 12 month contract which at that point suited us very well. I was wondering if we would be in a better position if we re-rented the place until our contract ended. It seems to me that they should not be allowed to take advantage of our situation like this when they agreed to put the place on the market. I was not told before hand that the place is going to be put on the market at such high price maybe just as a courtesy they should of told us before we paid the £540.

      Comment


        #4
        Your situation (based on case law) is that yo are tied to pay rent until the earlier of:
        1) The end of the period that you agreed to rent the property for
        2) A new tenant approved by the landlord moves into the property
        3) You agree something different with the landlord
        Therefore, whether the place is offered at £50 a week or £5000 a week, you still remain liable until (1).

        I suspect your contract does not allow you to sublet the premises and would you really want the responsibilities of being a landlord? You openly admit to not knowing about the relevant laws - how would you propose to remove your tenants at the end of your current contract?

        I appreciate that you did not know about your rightto go onto a periodic tenancy, but the landlord does not have an obligation to notify you of this - the law is available for everybody and there are loads of sources of information for tenants. You wouldn't expect Tesco to draw your attention to the Sale of Goods Act every time you buy a tin of beans.

        Comment


          #5
          I'm afraid the Consumer Protection in Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 could apply here. If the landlord accepts that the property can be re-marketed it would have to be at the same rent for the remaining fixed period of the tenancy, otherwise they are "moving the goalposts" and are unfairly prejudicing the tenant's position.

          I appreciate the landlord has no obligation to accept a replacement tenant but equally cannot ask a higher rent either until the end of any fixed term. The tenant would be better off finding their own replacement tenant and asking for assignment which should be within the tenancy terms for any such request not to be "unreasonably refused/withheld" .
          The advice I give should not be construed as a definitive answer, and is without prejudice or liability. You are advised to consult a specialist solicitor or other person of equal legal standing.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by Paul_f View Post
            If the landlord accepts that the property can be re-marketed it would have to be at the same rent for the remaining fixed period of the tenancy, otherwise they are "moving the goalposts" and are unfairly prejudicing the tenant's position.
            Where does this obligation to re-market at the same rent come from?
            Obviously in order not to disadvantage the tenant it should be re-marketed at a reasonable market price, but that could be more, or less, than the current rent.
            Re-marketing at the same rent if the market has gone down would still prejudice the tenant, while doing so if the market has gone up would prejudice the landlord.

            Anyway, here clearly the current tenant is being treated unfairly considering that the new deposit required is more than 2 month rent.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by Paul_f View Post
              I'm afraid the Consumer Protection in Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 could apply here. If the landlord accepts that the property can be re-marketed it would have to be at the same rent for the remaining fixed period of the tenancy, otherwise they are "moving the goalposts" and are unfairly prejudicing the tenant's position.

              I appreciate the landlord has no obligation to accept a replacement tenant but equally cannot ask a higher rent either until the end of any fixed term. The tenant would be better off finding their own replacement tenant and asking for assignment which should be within the tenancy terms for any such request not to be "unreasonably refused/withheld" .
              Thank you so much for your answer. The landlord agreed to re-market the property for the sum of £540 and we will be liable to pay rent until somebody else moves in. I don't mind him increasing the price of the property if that is not going to effect me moving out by 1st of February. Will be very hard to pay rent and mortgage for the remaining months if he will not able to find somebody else. Right now I just wanted to know if is anything I could do if the property stays on the market because the price is too high and I believe your answer is quite helpful in that regard.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by jjlandlord View Post
                Where does this obligation to re-market at the same rent come from?
                As the landlord is receiving £X per month then that is all he is entitled to until the current contract ends. If he expects more he can't have it both ways. Either he accepts the current rent or he allows the tenant to surrender if he wants to seek an increase. Just ask Consumer Direct or your local TSO. The OFT has published guidelines on the aforementioned Act that agents and landlords (Provider) are obliged to consider with tenants (consumers). It is a condition that consumers are treated "fairly" which I don't think is the case here.

                It could come under the sub-heading in the guidelines of "Lack of Professional Diligence" if it materially distorts, or is likely to materially distort, the economic behaviour of the average consumer. By the way a breach of the Act is a Criminal offence.
                The advice I give should not be construed as a definitive answer, and is without prejudice or liability. You are advised to consult a specialist solicitor or other person of equal legal standing.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by Paul_f View Post
                  As the landlord is receiving £X per month then that is all he is entitled to until the current contract ends. If he expects more he can't have it both ways. Either he accepts the current rent or he allows the tenant to surrender if he wants to seek an increase.
                  I still don't see the point.
                  If the landlord accepts to re-market the property, surely the fair way is to market the property at a fair market rent, not higher, but not lower either, whatever the rent currently being paid by the tenant.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by jjlandlord View Post
                    I still don't see the point.
                    If the landlord accepts to re-market the property, surely the fair way is to market the property at a fair market rent, not higher, but not lower either, whatever the rent currently being paid by the tenant.
                    No, I can see Paul's point. The LL wants to have his cake and eat it. At the very least he should have made it clear to OP that any early surrender was dependent on being able to re-let the property at the higher rent of £x, not suddenly hoik it up once OP had paid the extra fee.
                    'Pause you who read this, and think for a moment of the long chain of iron or gold, of thorns or flowers, that would never have bound you, but for the formation fo the first link on one memorable day'. Charles Dickens, Great Expectations

                    Comment


                      #11
                      arabela, what is the market rent for the property? I fear you are being led up the garden path by some members on this forum.
                      What have the agents said regarding the huge price increase? Have you spoken to the landlord directly?
                      Allow tenants to protect their own deposits. I want free money when they do it wrong

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Dear all,

                        I might of supposed to many things without talking with the landlord. The place is very popular and people really want it. We had already people putting the application for the place. Because I look for rents that are cheaper and affordable I did not think somebody would like to go forward with this price. Thank you for all your advices and wish you all the best.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by mind the gap View Post
                          The LL wants to have his cake and eat it.
                          Only if he was trying to get above market rent, which does not actually seem to be the case.

                          Comment

                          Latest Activity

                          Collapse

                          Working...
                          X